Memento is soooo an analogy for the courses philosophy has taken since its modern inception in the Enlightenment. The protagonist begins with clear powers of cognition (philosophy as done by the speculative rationalists and british empiricists), goes through an experience which brings with it the destruction of his cognitive processes (beginning with Kant's assault on our experiential relationship with the noumenal and continuing on through the idealists down to postmodern critiques of man as self-situated in his cognitive investigations), yet he continues to (purposely) delude himself, acting out of a futile attempt to grasp what he'd lost. The last part is where the analogy gets a bit fuzzy but I would argue that work which ignores (or brushes aside) our epistemic situatedness is doing just that.

Came to me in the shower man/

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

It works though right? I don't think that was Nolan's goal but I still think it matches up pretty well. Where did I mess up?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

It works though right? I don't think that was Nolan's goal but I still think it matches up pretty well. Where did I mess up?

Hmmmm...... well it works, like you say. I just meant that I don't think that anyone involved in the movie intended it that way. But besides the last scene, I don't see a discrepancy, if we're being vague.

"How true it is that words are but vague shadows of the volumes we mean. Little audible links they are, chaining together great inaudible feelings and purposes."

It works though right? I don't think that was Nolan's goal but I still think it matches up pretty well. Where did I mess up?

Hmmmm...... well it works, like you say. I just meant that I don't think that anyone involved in the movie intended it that way. But besides the last scene, I don't see a discrepancy, if we're being vague.

I get that of course. Nolan just seems to have a knack for putting out films open to wide philosophical interpretation. I'm still trying to find someone to debate me on whether or not his Batman trilogy possessed an implicit vindication of modern conservatism. Likewise Inception is awesome if you a springboard to get into talks of ethics, reality, even commodity production in industrial capitalism (if you can believe it) or really anything metaphysically mind-bending. Oh and then The Prestige. How about dat personal identity conunundrum?

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

It works though right? I don't think that was Nolan's goal but I still think it matches up pretty well. Where did I mess up?

Hmmmm...... well it works, like you say. I just meant that I don't think that anyone involved in the movie intended it that way. But besides the last scene, I don't see a discrepancy, if we're being vague.

I get that of course. Nolan just seems to have a knack for putting out films open to wide philosophical interpretation. I'm still trying to find someone to debate me on whether or not his Batman trilogy possessed an implicit vindication of modern conservatism. Likewise Inception is awesome if you a springboard to get into talks of ethics, reality, even commodity production in industrial capitalism (if you can believe it) or really anything metaphysically mind-bending. Oh and then The Prestige. How about dat personal identity conunundrum?

Well, you could ostensibly bend and twist theory to interpret more or less anything--economists are very talented at constructing incredibly sophisticated models to fit observational data (of which there is no shortage). I think there's a definite worry involved in using theory as an interpretive matrix. There's a point at which you end up with a Higgs field problem (which explanation will probably stretch my limited understanding of quantum physics)--while all of the data-particles that are floating around acquire meaning only when connected by theory, one runs a serious risk of advocating a runaway theory when none of the hypotheses are explicitly testable, since falsifiability is what separates data-fitting theories from data-explaining ones.

All this is to say that you could use theory to glean philosophically significant conclusions from culture, but I have to wonder about where the line can be drawn between discovering something in culture and instrumentalizing theory for mental gymnastics.

If the Higgs analogy was vague, what I mean is: the Higgs field is hypothesized as something through which particles pass to gain mass; similarly, I think there's a problem with theory in which it functions as an a priori Higgs field, attaching weight and meaning to everything which passes through it, immediately coloring its interpretation, rather than calling into question the usefulness of the theory. Incorporation vs. reevaluation, I guess.

It works though right? I don't think that was Nolan's goal but I still think it matches up pretty well. Where did I mess up?

Hmmmm...... well it works, like you say. I just meant that I don't think that anyone involved in the movie intended it that way. But besides the last scene, I don't see a discrepancy, if we're being vague.

I get that of course. Nolan just seems to have a knack for putting out films open to wide philosophical interpretation. I'm still trying to find someone to debate me on whether or not his Batman trilogy possessed an implicit vindication of modern conservatism. Likewise Inception is awesome if you a springboard to get into talks of ethics, reality, even commodity production in industrial capitalism (if you can believe it) or really anything metaphysically mind-bending. Oh and then The Prestige. How about dat personal identity conunundrum?

Well, you could ostensibly bend and twist theory to interpret more or less anything--economists are very talented at constructing incredibly sophisticated models to fit observational data (of which there is no shortage). I think there's a definite worry involved in using theory as an interpretive matrix. There's a point at which you end up with a Higgs field problem (which explanation will probably stretch my limited understanding of quantum physics)--while all of the data-particles that are floating around acquire meaning only when connected by theory, one runs a serious risk of advocating a runaway theory when none of the hypotheses are explicitly testable, since falsifiability is what separates data-fitting theories from data-explaining ones.

All this is to say that you could use theory to glean philosophically significant conclusions from culture, but I have to wonder about where the line can be drawn between discovering something in culture and instrumentalizing theory for mental gymnastics.

I think it's not as simple as observation-explaining vs. observation-fitting theories in regards to interpreting purely entertainment-centric pieces like films. The greatness of Nolan's films is precisely that it sets up a scenario fit for "mental gymnastics". I doubt there's any conscious or overarching meaning to his works (in a the purely philosophical sense with which I've interpreted a lot of them) which is inscribed purposely. Rather he sets up a scenario of interactions, themes, and development which lends itself so easily to philosophical observation-fitting excercises. The problem of fitting observation to theory only really comes into play when it is forwarded as a realist-interpretation of an actual state of affairs. But using perceived similarities/analogies for further understanding of that which seeks to be explained (in this instance post-Enlightenment philosophy) appears to be fully consistent with an aversion for observation-fitting as realist-interpretation, if only because the scenarios are distinct.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 4/25/2013 11:34:55 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:I'm confused by the OP and this whole thread.

It's because you're stupid.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 4/24/2013 10:48:16 AM, Noumena wrote:I get that of course. Nolan just seems to have a knack for putting out films open to wide philosophical interpretation. I'm still trying to find someone to debate me on whether or not his Batman trilogy possessed an implicit vindication of modern conservatism. Likewise Inception is awesome if you a springboard to get into talks of ethics, reality, even commodity production in industrial capitalism (if you can believe it) or really anything metaphysically mind-bending. Oh and then The Prestige. How about dat personal identity conunundrum?

Well, you could ostensibly bend and twist theory to interpret more or less anything--economists are very talented at constructing incredibly sophisticated models to fit observational data (of which there is no shortage). I think there's a definite worry involved in using theory as an interpretive matrix. There's a point at which you end up with a Higgs field problem (which explanation will probably stretch my limited understanding of quantum physics)--while all of the data-particles that are floating around acquire meaning only when connected by theory, one runs a serious risk of advocating a runaway theory when none of the hypotheses are explicitly testable, since falsifiability is what separates data-fitting theories from data-explaining ones.

All this is to say that you could use theory to glean philosophically significant conclusions from culture, but I have to wonder about where the line can be drawn between discovering something in culture and instrumentalizing theory for mental gymnastics.

I think it's not as simple as observation-explaining vs. observation-fitting theories in regards to interpreting purely entertainment-centric pieces like films. The greatness of Nolan's films is precisely that it sets up a scenario fit for "mental gymnastics". I doubt there's any conscious or overarching meaning to his works (in a the purely philosophical sense with which I've interpreted a lot of them) which is inscribed purposely. Rather he sets up a scenario of interactions, themes, and development which lends itself so easily to philosophical observation-fitting excercises. The problem of fitting observation to theory only really comes into play when it is forwarded as a realist-interpretation of an actual state of affairs. But using perceived similarities/analogies for further understanding of that which seeks to be explained (in this instance post-Enlightenment philosophy) appears to be fully consistent with an aversion for observation-fitting as realist-interpretation, if only because the scenarios are distinct.

So, what do you do with features, periods, or authors of "post-Enlightenment philosophy" which don't fit your analogy?

At 4/24/2013 10:48:16 AM, Noumena wrote:I get that of course. Nolan just seems to have a knack for putting out films open to wide philosophical interpretation. I'm still trying to find someone to debate me on whether or not his Batman trilogy possessed an implicit vindication of modern conservatism. Likewise Inception is awesome if you a springboard to get into talks of ethics, reality, even commodity production in industrial capitalism (if you can believe it) or really anything metaphysically mind-bending. Oh and then The Prestige. How about dat personal identity conunundrum?

Well, you could ostensibly bend and twist theory to interpret more or less anything--economists are very talented at constructing incredibly sophisticated models to fit observational data (of which there is no shortage). I think there's a definite worry involved in using theory as an interpretive matrix. There's a point at which you end up with a Higgs field problem (which explanation will probably stretch my limited understanding of quantum physics)--while all of the data-particles that are floating around acquire meaning only when connected by theory, one runs a serious risk of advocating a runaway theory when none of the hypotheses are explicitly testable, since falsifiability is what separates data-fitting theories from data-explaining ones.

All this is to say that you could use theory to glean philosophically significant conclusions from culture, but I have to wonder about where the line can be drawn between discovering something in culture and instrumentalizing theory for mental gymnastics.

I think it's not as simple as observation-explaining vs. observation-fitting theories in regards to interpreting purely entertainment-centric pieces like films. The greatness of Nolan's films is precisely that it sets up a scenario fit for "mental gymnastics". I doubt there's any conscious or overarching meaning to his works (in a the purely philosophical sense with which I've interpreted a lot of them) which is inscribed purposely. Rather he sets up a scenario of interactions, themes, and development which lends itself so easily to philosophical observation-fitting excercises. The problem of fitting observation to theory only really comes into play when it is forwarded as a realist-interpretation of an actual state of affairs. But using perceived similarities/analogies for further understanding of that which seeks to be explained (in this instance post-Enlightenment philosophy) appears to be fully consistent with an aversion for observation-fitting as realist-interpretation, if only because the scenarios are distinct.

So, what do you do with features, periods, or authors of "post-Enlightenment philosophy" which don't fit your analogy?

Ignore them usually ;)Like I said observation-fitting only becomes a problem when forwarding a realist-interpretation (read: an interpretation meant to coherently fit/explain the events observed). I'm not doing that. The methodology is more a way to mull over trends/things I happen to find important over a large amount of information. Post-enlightenment philosophy can't be explained by the Memento analogy on a realist-interpretation inasmuch as anything can't be fully/coherently explained within a set of observations fitted around a general theory. Like you said, it's a chance at mental gymnastics + intellectual masturbation.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.